Log in

Milwaukee Bucks

Charles F. Gardner Monday chat transcript

Bucks and the NBA Draft

Beat writer Charles F. Gardner answered your questions about the Bucks following their moves in the NBA draft.

Q:
Nicanor,
Montevideo, Uruguay
- Of the 13 likely roster players after the draft (assuming Redd, Boykins, Dooling and Douglas-Roberts aren't re-signed), I see 1 center, 6 power forwards, 2 small forwards, 3 point guards, and 1 shooting guard. I realize that some players can play multiple postions but it seems the Bucks are a little thin, to put it mildly, at center and shooting guard, especially considering Bogut's injury-proneness and Jackson's apparent lack of enthusiam about being dealt to Milwaukee. Would it not be safe to assume, in light of such an obviously unbalanced roster, that Hammonds is not done trading?

A: Charles F. Gardner
- Hi everyone,
To say it was an eventful draft day is an understatement. The Bucks made a major trade and two draft picks as John Hammond did some serious reshaping with an eye toward returning to the playoffs. Nicanor, you're saying the Bucks just have one shooting guard but they probably have three with Stephen Jackson, Carlos Delfino and Beno Udrih. Remember, Udrih can play both guard spots and is a very good shooter. I'm sure there will be some other moves made once the collective bargaining situation is resolved, but I think this is the biggest move right here.

Q:
Renee,
Milwaukee, WI
- Charles I was disappointed the Bucks didn't pick Marshon Brooks with the 19th pick, do you know why they chose Tobias over an more athletic NBA ready Brooks? How do you think Jon Leuer will fit with the glut of power forward?

A: Charles F. Gardner
- Hi Renee,
The Bucks did like Brooks and worked him out twice, but once they made the trade for three guards (Jackson, Udrih and Shaun Livingston) I didn't figure they would take another guard in the draft. So they addressed the frontcourt in the draft with Harris and Leuer. They still need a backup center and probably will try to sign a veteran free agent, I would think.

Q:
Larry Ervin,
Milwaukee/Wi
- Hi Charles, How are you? I'm ok.So what do you think about the draft and the trades of Salmons and Magette? I think it is ok but I hope it works out with Jackson because he is not happy with the trade.To me, I think he should be happy a team took him in with all his problems he has.Am I right or wrong?Urith will help out Jennings a great deal.I don't think Livingston won't be here long though.To me, I don't think Hammond is done yet.I was surprised that they good rid of Salmons after they just gave him that big contract.So what do you think about all this? Are they going to go after another free agent or trade again you think? I do.Thanks Charles.

A: Charles F. Gardner
- Hi Larry,
The Bucks wanted to trade Maggette because it didn't work in terms of chemistry or anything else. But how do you unload a player with two years and $20 million left on his contract. They were able to do it by picking up Jackson, who may be a gamble but also has been a big-time scorer for Charlotte. The Bucks also feel Jackson will be a competitive player, someone who still wants to win and shows it on the court. And they know he can score. Trading Salmons was a bit of a surprise after the Bucks signed him to four years and a guaranteed $33 million last summer. But he struggled last season. Now they have three guards to take some of the ball handling pressure off Jennings and allow him to flourish.

Q:
Eric,
Grafton, Wi
- Hey Charles. I love the Jon Leuer pick. In your opinion though, will he play significant minutes off of the Bucks bench if/when the labor dispute reaches a conclusion?

A: Charles F. Gardner
- Hi Eric,
I wouldn't expect Leuer to play major minutes as a rookie. The last second-round pick to do that for the Bucks was Luc Richard Mbah a Moute, and that was primarily due to his ability to defend. But if the labor dispute is settled, Leuer will have a chance to get to an NBA training camp and learn from some veterans --- Bogut, Gooden, Ilyasova.

Q:
andy,
ashland, WI
- How long is Stephen Jackson signed for? I doubt he will help the team win but if his deal is almost up then atleast we were able to dump Maggette's contract (very poor fit on a Brandon Jennings run team) and Salmon's brand new deal for only a year of dealing with Jackson and all his baggage.

A: Charles F. Gardner
- Hi Andy,
Jackson and Maggette have nearly identical contracts, both with two years remaining and both valued at around $20 million over that period. Salmons has three guaranteed years left on his contract while Udrih has one year and a player option year, and Livingston has one year left on his deal. So the Bucks do achieve some savings down the line due to the trade.

Q:
Jim Wendland,
Newton / NJ
- Any chance of packaging Jennings somewhere? He's never going to become a good, true point guard and it will hold back the team from winning big time. He plays out of control and takes to many poor shots in big situations. To many people are still living on his 55 point game, which is not what a point guard should be scoring. He thinks he's Kobie because of the one night. He's never going to mature into a good player and move to the next level. The Bucks should cut this guy from the hip. A true point guard like Nash, Paul, and Rose, know how to make the players around them better and this is something Jennings will never be able to do. The excuse of being young and he'll grow into the position is no long valid as he showed no signs of growing up last season.

A: Charles F. Gardner
- Hi Jim,
All the moves made Thursday show that Jennings is going nowhere. Everything else in the backcourt changed, not the starting point guard spot. It's clear the Bucks are committed to Jennings and believe he can be a playmaker, not just a scorer. They tried to get help around him and bring back the magic of his rookie season when he combined so well with Luke Ridnour -- picking up Udrih for ball handling and scoring help at the point position.

A: Charles F. Gardner
- Hi Derrick,
The lockout could be a very bad thing for Redd, who needs to show teams he can still be an asset. He certainly would not benefit from a long layoff or work stoppage after not playing for most of the past two seasons. With all the team's moves in the backcourt, I doubt Redd is in the plans next season.

Q:
Nathan
- Two questions for you. Are Ilysova and Dooling now expendable? Will the Bucks still address the backup SG and C positions?

A: Charles F. Gardner
- Hi Nathan,
I don't think the moves affect Ilyasova that much. He and Gooden are the top power forwards on the roster, with Mbah a Moute able to play both power forward positions. Harris and Leuer are rookies added to the mix. Keyon Dooling's future is a bit more uncertain. He has another year on his contract (earning $2 million in 2011-'12) but would seem to be pushed back behind Udrih and Livingston.

Q:
eric,
Albany Wi.
- Can you see a scenario where Milwaukee trades Stephen Jackson,besides if he holds out and demands a trade? If he doesn't want to play in Milwaukee,then why have him?

A: Charles F. Gardner
- Hi Eric,
I don't see that. He will be in Milwaukee later this week and we will learn more. The Bucks plan for him to be a key part of the backcourt as they try to ignite their slumbering offense.

Q:
Joe,
Deerfield, IL
- Dear Charles...Two part question. 1) How do you feel Stephen Jackson will fit into Skiles coaching philosphy and style. I know Skiles requires guys that play hard and defense. Does Jackson have a history of blending in with this philosphy. Second part of the question....How much of the Bucks weak offensive woes in the past year are attributed to lack of teamwork, chemistry or coaching? I think there was too much talent on the team but could not find the right blend of players with proper chemistry. I hope Jackson is not a small bandaid to a bigger problem

A: Charles F. Gardner
- Hi Joe,
There's no question the blend was a problem last season. Maggette did not fit, plain and simple. Management made a mistake in acquiring him and admitted it with Thursday's trade. Salmons also struggled mightily after playing so well at the end of the previous season. He never could really figure out what was wrong and neither could the team. The team's hope is that Jackson will have a competitive posture on the court, something he showed in abundance in Charlotte. How will it work here? Time will tell. Skiles said he thought the team improved its playmaking abilities and acquired competitors in the three-team trade. That's what was important to him.

Q:
Mike,
Milton, WI
- Hi Charles,
Was the trade for Stephen Jackson as much about getting rid of the Salmons and Maggette contracts as their poor performance last season? Is Stephen
Jackson even going to play in Milwaukee? Didn't sound like it from early reports. Also, how is Bogut healing and rehabbing? Will there even be a 2011-12 season to worry about any of this?

A: Charles F. Gardner
- Hi Mike,
Remember how Richard Jefferson wasn't going to play in Milwaukee? He arrived here and had a decent season before being traded to San Antonio the following year. I wouldn't read too much into those "early reports." And will there even be a season? That is the huge question looming over the league this week. More talks are expected between players and owners but time is short as the CBA expires Thursday and a lockout could be imposed by end of week.

Q:
dapackers,
milwaukee
- charles;the headline in the paper on wednesday was hammond adds more offence wasn't maggete and salmons were to add more offence to the team how does the trades add more offence to this team or was this more a salary dump trade that is saving the team money in the long run thank you

A: Charles F. Gardner
- I don't think it's a salary dump because the savings aren't that great and primarily occur a few years from now when Salmons is in the fourth guaranteed year of his deal. It was about changing the way the offense will run, with better ball handlers, shooters and passers. That's what they tried to acquire in Jackson, Udrih and Livingston. Not sure if it will work, but what they had certainly wasn't working. Bringing back Maggette was going to be problem so this was a chance to make a deal. Did they give up on Salmons too soon? He was up in Chicago, then down. Up in Milwaukee, then down. He has played in Sacramento before and should be comfortable there. Don't be surprised if he has a good season for Kings.

Q:
Keith,
Cherry Hill, NJ
- What is the outlook on the conditon of Bogut's elbow next year?

A: Charles F. Gardner
- I know Andrew is working out in Melbourne and preparing for next season. I don't have a detailed report on his progress but will try to get an update soon.

Q:
Cheesehead Sports Nut,
Chicago, IL
- After taking time to let the draft day trade soak in I have to say I am happy with the end result. I think John Hammond could have avoided it all by resigning Luke Ridnour for 25% of what he signed John Salmons for last off-season but all things considered I am happy with the trade. Do you agree with the Ridnour/Salmons thoughts or do you think I am overvaluing Ridnour?

A: Charles F. Gardner
- Hi Cheesehead,
I think there's no doubt the loss of Ridnour hurt the Bucks last season. The problem was he played the same position Jennings did and would not start in Milwaukee, while he wound up starting for the Timberwolves. Of course, Ricky Rubio is there now, but that's another story. Getting Udrih in the trade tells you the Bucks understand how much this hurt their cause. In Udrih they are getting another guard who can handle the ball, push it in transition and hit three-pointers. And the Bucks believe Udrih is effective at getting to the rim and finishing. He is a huge part of this deal.

Q:
Michael,
Milwaukee, WI
- Yet another year where we sacrifice long-term to win 2-3 more games in the present season. The Bucks should have just stopped at Salmons and #10 for Udrih and #7. Swapping Maggette for Jackson is not worth dropping 12 spots in the draft, regardless of what Hammond thinks. All I know is that Klay Thompson and Alec Burks, among others, better not turn out to be studs, and this Harris kid had better be good.

A: Charles F. Gardner
- Hi Michael,
The three-team deal took various twists and turns, and there were other teams out there proposing trades. I think the Bucks liked Thompson and would have been content to draft him, but they had a chance to make a more major shakeup. And Harris is a long-term focus, drafting a college freshman just about to turn 19. I'm sure their plan is not to win 2 or 3 more games next season but try to get back above the .500 mark and return to the playoffs. Not sure if this will do it. OK, thanks everyone for all your post-draft questions.